从假设度看先秦汉语的“苟”“若”之别  

On the difference between gou and ruo in Pre-Qin Chinese from the perspective of the degree of hypothesis

作　　者：刘利[1] 朱光鑫 LIU Li;ZHU Guangxin

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学文学院,100875 [2]湖南大学中国语言文学学院,410082

出　　处：《语言教学与研究》2024年第5期37-51,共15页Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies

基　　金：国家社科基金重大项目“汉语复句历史演变研究及其语料库建设”(16ZDA207)的支持。

摘　　要：先秦汉语中存在两个近似的条件标记“苟”“若”,二者在假设度方面存在显著差别。根据假设度的高低,条件句可以依次分为6类:事实、半事实、可能性大、可能性小、主观假定、反事实条件句。“苟”标记事实、半事实、可能性大的条件,不能标记主观假定、反事实条件,其假设度较低;“若”则主要标记可能性大的条件,同时可以延伸标记事实、半事实、可能性小、主观假定、反事实条件,其假设度中性。先秦汉语可以通过连词来区分句子的假设程度。There are two approximate conditional markers gou(苟)and ruo(若)in Pre-Qin Chinese,and there are significant differences in the degree of hypothesis between them.According to the degree of hypothesis,conditional sentences can be divided into six categories:fact,semi-fact,high possibility,low possibility,subjective assumption and counterfactual conditionals.Gou(苟)marks facts,semi-facts and high possibility conditions,but cannot mark subjective assumption and counterfactual conditionals,and its degree of hypothesis is low;ruo(若)mainly marks the conditions of high possibility,and can also be extended to mark the conditions of fact,semi-fact,low possibility,subjective assumption and counterfactual,and its degree of hypothesis is neutral.Pre-Qin Chinese can distinguish the hypothetical degree of sentences through conjunctions.

关 键 词：“苟” “若” 假设度 条件句 先秦汉语 

分 类 号：H131[语言文字—汉语] H141[历史地理—历史学] K22[历史地理—中国史]